Page 6 of 6

Americans can't handle the truth

PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 11:00 am
by proldic
This is getting ridiculous, and y'all are getting hysterical. <br><br>Man, say anything that challenges the naive hopes for this woman and watch the sharkpack form. It looks like some people here actually think they're on the "front lines" down in Crawford, and I'm a Rovian operative standing on the anti-Cindy side of "the line". This is not the protest line, this is a <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>discussion</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> board.<br>Yet these Cindy strings are some of the most locked-down, and dissent-free of threads. Just look at what happened to chiggerbit when he/she tried to introduce some mild critique before. <br><br>It's not that I don't understand the psychology behind it, believe me. I'm pretty sure I've been supporting and organizing large protests, from what I've been able to garner picking up from people's stories here, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>long</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> before most of the people posting regularly on this board even had their initial political "awakening". Don't come all righteous w/ me. You all ought to step back and take a look at how you are shutting out any debate on this subject here. You can't even read an article from the "opposing side", even if it might have some pertinent information within it? That is not a healthy sign at all.<br><br>Can't you folks see how you are confirming everything Horowitz says about you right here?<br><br>Be fair to me -- go back and read all my posts on Cindy, especially in the other thread where this was discussed previously. I was the one to bring this issue up way back then. And I spelled out quite clearly where I was coming from. It was certainly not from a place that deserved the level of attack that has been directed at me.<br><br>What is most distressing, yet so typical, is the crude collective attempt to twist my words and falsely paint my views in the attempt to create a whipping boy. So all the politically-naive, not-learning-from-history, intensely frustrated can have someone to vent their pent-up rage on. Each poster building off the last ones' false assumption in some feeding-frenzy, until my original points are all lost, my morally-sound stand is obscured, and suddenly I'm cast as "smearing Cindy".<br><br>So now, after being accused of "smearing" Cindy, and dismissed for "defending jews", after being told to "shut up", and "fuck off", <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>in response to Al's defending/rationalizing Cindy lying about whether she wrote "my son joined the army to protect America, not Israel"</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, I suggested that yes -- if she's lying because she has somehow determined that Americans can't handle the truth, and that "truth" is the idea of primary or even tertiary Israeli-Jewish control over the destiny of the soldiers in Iraq, and she's lying to cover-up her real views, then yes, that's a "hidden agenda". <br><br>And if she did write those words, and now she regrets them because she has gotten more "politically sophisticated", and she's acting on some tactical judgemnent that says that lying about her mistake is the best course, then that's an extremely grave tactical error, and she will most certainly be perceived as having a "hidden agenda". <br><br>To answer Qutb's question directly: no, I don't think Cindy had any "hidden agenda" when she started this, beyond dealing with the pain of her loss. If she has developed a political one now, I can't say, but I doubt it. <br><br>What I can say with 100% certainty is that there are people in positions of great influence around Cindy and in the de facto leadership of this current protest scene she has sparked, who most definetly do have a nefarious "hidden agenda" (beyond simply covering up her real beliefs/ mistakes for political efficacy). <br><br>Her populist appeal is a double-edged sword. It may be the thing that gives her "staying power", but it's also exactly because of her naivete and political unsophistication that she's makes the ideal dupe and puppet. <br><br>Don't blame little old Proldic when it all degenerates, as it always does. Blame yourselves for not being honest with the people, and for stifling internal debate and self-critique.<br><br>It's laughable -- <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>you're</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> the ones who must be working for David Horowitz. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>


PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:51 pm
by robertdreed
"Yet these Cindy strings are some of the most locked-down, and dissent-free of threads."<br><br>proldic an actual "locked-down, dissent-free" thread sure wouldn't look like this one. <br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=>robertdreed</A> at: 8/31/05 11:01 am<br></i>

Irrelevant cheap shot

PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:14 pm
by proldic
What's the point, besides being smarmy?<br><br>Allow me some hyperbolic license! Who died and made you hyperbole-cop?<br><br>"smearing", "shut up" "fuck off" not "locked down"?<br><br>Whatever "locked down" means to you, obviously it's not "locked out", and I wasn't saying that.<br><br>Inconsiderate wolf-pack reaction to chiggerbit not "locked down"?<br><br>Anyone besides me and chiggerbit dissenting out of dozens of hagiographys to Cindy posters and snarling rebukes?<br><br>Considering the huge questions at hand, and the level of dissent to this view in the overall population, I'd say that pretty much qualifies as "dissent-free" as far as RI goes.<br><br>It's ironic you pipe in here with that pearl of wisdom, because when I was writing my last response in this thread, I was specifically thinking of one of your metaphors. Guess which one... <p></p><i></i>


PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:37 pm
by robertdreed
<br>One of the wonders of on-line debate is that there is no "wolfpack" breathing down anyone's neck. I actually rather enjoy round-housing multiple opponents, because the Internet gives me the opportunity to do it. But that's just me. Why more people don't take advantage of such a splendid forum to do that, I'm not sure. It would be presumptuous of me to guess.<br><br>There's a vast difference between finding oneself the lone defender of a position, and being censored. And I don't think I'm being "smarmy" for pointing that out. <br><br>There's also a difference between being pasted in an argument and being censored. <br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=>robertdreed</A> at: 8/31/05 11:42 am<br></i>

Re: proldic...

PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:50 pm
by Dreams End
First off, yes, this is not DU. No censoring or banning, save for a very few that break these very minimal rules. <br><br>Secondly, proldic, come on are so aggressive in criticizing the individuals making the arguments and not just the arguments that you can't really complain about the response. You provoke and then when someone fires back in anger you complain about it like they are "censoring you". <br><br>Before you start in on me though, let me say that I agree in part with your position. When I first saw her Israel remark I groaned (I pointed that remark out as an aside in another post.) I don't know if she made it. I haven't seen the emails and we all have to recognize that anytime someone is succesful getting a message out, the disinfo ops go into overdrive. And they are good at what they do.<br><br>Let's assume she made them, as I did when I read them. My first assumption was that she was likely not that politically oppositional before her son died. I assumed, then, that, vulture-like, all kinds of individuals and organizations were descending on her to claim her as their own and be associated with her, as well as to shape her message. <br><br>It is really easy to make a superficial case for the "israel runs America" type conspiracy argument. We both know that there are many fairly legitimate looking sites such as WRH that do this all the time. It's possible for someone who is being steered badly to adopt this position with little understanding of the deeper implications. After all HOW could a tiny country like Israel control the US...unless it was US Jews secretly taking everything over. There's no other way that Israel could exercise such control. So if you think Israel calls the shots, you are forced to use logic that suggests there is a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. And for those of you on here who think Israel calls the shots but don't claim such a conspiracy, I'd ask you to tell us HOW, then, Israel exercises this control? WHY would the US government obey them? No, there's really no way to avoid this extension of that "logic." It's the Jews, baby. <br><br>But, as I started to say, for someone not too sophisticated politically, it's easy to throw together a case that "proves" it's all about Israel. Especially if they are susceptible to logic such as this: PNAC calls for a certain action. Some people on PNAC are Jewish. Therefore, PNAC is part of a Jewish conspiracy. <br><br>I know that Cindy represents hope and defiance to many regular folks who can't get to Crawford. But those who do get to Crawford include many with their own agendas. I think her comments show who got to her first.<br><br>In addition, let's find some way to stay united. Disinfo and division are stock and trade of the FBI et al. If I were an FBI agent assigned to bust up the credibility of the Sheehan folks, I'd be like a kid in a candy store. I'd do something like this:<br><br>1. Send my deep cover/unwitting agents of disinfo to befriend her as quickly as possible. Get Makow to propose. Whatever.<br><br>2. Get letters out to editors of newspapers saying how great Cindy is, and then throw in discrediting stuff. "At last, a woman willing to stand up to the Jews." or something like that.<br><br>3. Then I'd get the other side of my forces to start going after her for dating Makow and for fueling an anti-Semitic movement. Meanwhile ignoring the vast majority of her following who simply want the war to end.<br><br>A very similar tactic, in fact, was used against the Black Panthers, who, I believe were getting some funding from Leonard Bernstein.<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>One of the most insidious efforts of COINTELPRO came in trying to fracture the coalition comprised of African-Americans and American Jews. By 1968, the radical Black Panther Party had captured the imagination of many African-Americans. At the same time, the FBI believed that Jews were behind much of the financing of leftist causes, including the Panthers.<br><br>This alliance, from the FBI's perspective, had to be shattered -- and the FBI decided to try to shatter it.<br><br>The FBI's Strategy: Lying to--and Dividing--African-Americans and Jews<br><br>In 1969, the New York FBI office attempted to turn the Jewish Defense League against the Black Panthers, by sending the JDL anonymous reports of alleged anti-Semitic actions or statements by the Panthers. Eventually the Bureau chose Rabbi Meir Kahane, a mercurial director of the JDL, as the unwitting source through which to funnel and disseminate the false information. <br><br>The extremes of the late 1960s demanded hyperbole to get noticed, a tactic the FBI decided to embrace. Agents admitted that information passed to Kahane would need "some embellishment" to provoke the JDL into taking action.<br><br>So, resorting to stereotypes, the FBI's New York office penned a fake letter from an African-American World War II veteran to the JDL. The letter claimed that the fabricated veteran had been helped by "a Jewish Army Dr. named 'Rothstein,'" and had been "encouraged to remain in high school for two years by my favorite Jewish teacher, Mr. Katz." The "veteran" said he was upset because his son was a Black Panther who, after returning from Algeria, had hatched a plan to extort money from Jewish storeowners that would then be sent to "the Arabs in Africa." If the storeowners did not cooperate, their shops would be blown up. <br><br> From: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href=""></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>In fact, it is because of this COINTELPRO history that I can entertain the idea that she never even said those things in the first place. But even if she did, I look carefully for other signatures of intel games. <br><br>The "left", whatever that may be in the US, is either ignorant of or simply dismissive of the history of COINTELPRO type operations. I don't know why or how this can be, but I do see it a lot. they are "easy pickings", especially since there are entire ultra-left groups who are probably wholesale creations of the FBI. Rightwing groups as well. I'm not sure there's a klan chapter currently in existence that isn't either infiltrated or actually started by the FBI. <br><br>So let's be real careful here. It's just really hard to sort out the truth and it's dangerous to go flinging accusations.<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>


PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 3:02 pm
by proldic
Nobody said "censored". It's about people's over-the-top reactions to views they don't agree with. Like "shut up" "fuck-off" "full-time jew-defender" "cindy sheehan smearer".<br><br>You've got what's called austerity complex. You are high on your own intellectual ego and in a love affair with sophistry. I have no reason to see you as an ally, or someone interested in progressive change. Where's your heart? At best you are a source for trivia, dates, and zip codes. <br><br>You do realize how half the time you think you're "roundhousing" multiple opponents, you "come off" like a sanctimonious, nit-picking school-marm, if not an undercover racist, sexist, homophobic bigot? <br><br>Oops, did I just say that?<br> <br>Anyway, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>I</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> most certainly wasn't the one who was <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>pasted</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> last night. <br><br>Thanks for your valuable input on this thread.<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

Re: proldic...

PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 3:19 pm
by antiaristo
<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>I'd ask you to tell us HOW, then, Israel exercises this control? WHY would the US government obey them? No, there's really no way to avoid this extension of that "logic." It's the Jews, baby.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br><br>DreamsEnd,<br>That's exactly what I've been doing.<br>Take a look at the photo posted by rain. THERE is your answer. <p></p><i></i>

educated name calling

PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 3:25 pm
by ZeroHaven
oh pleez! this is the first indication i've had that proldic and dreamsend aren't the same stiff, over-react first then push an agenda person<br><br>if you can, take a break from the outrage and horror.. <br>fighting the fear mongers is as stressful as giving into them. arguing will only give you ulcers. <br><br>the effects of Cindy's efforts can't be denied.. for whatever sane or crazy reasons, more people are shouting for ending the war and that isn't a bad thing. <p><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src=""/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--></p><i></i>

Re: educated name calling

PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 3:35 pm
by Dreams End thought you and I were the same person. If that didn't make you laugh........<br><br><br>Zero, go back to defending pedophile rights, man. <p></p><i></i>

If your purpose is to downgrade the discussion congrats

PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 4:54 pm
by winsomecowboy
Why don't you boys just admit it. These spats are fun are they not?<br>"austerity complex" Indeed, Pot meet kettle meet entire set of bridal white-ware.<br>I enjoyed this site for the many months I've visited, astonished that so many subjects and opinions could be discussed in an environment that lent a more or less uniform respect to its participants.<br>But it seems we've devolved into the realm of the self pronounced industrial verbiage spatmiesters. I know its beyond you, so whether you mind or not I'm going to be embarrassed for you.<br>Try to stay on topic in future and use those massive grey organs of yours to distill whether its possible to seperate content and reasoned argument from (for want of a more derogatory term) personality.<br>Given this site consistantly applies itself to 'The bigger picture' I find it laughable that self absorption has led to its decline. (In my mere opinion)<br>And if in fact the disruption of tone has been deliberate I'm surprised such intelligences have succumbed to such transparent personalised provocation<br>Oh and I've been organising protests since before Francis Ferdinand so stuff that up your jumper and go shit in a hat <p></p><i></i>

Pix, Sheehan's Walk Hits the Road.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 3:37 pm
by Sweejak
<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href=""></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

Re: Pix, Sheehan's Walk Hits the Road.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 3:47 pm
by DrDebugDU
In the meantime Karl Rove visited the opposite camp in a surprise visit.<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src=""/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

Re: Pix, Sheehan's Walk Hits the Road.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 4:02 pm
by Sweejak
The net seems excruciatingly slow today, can't get to the link. <p></p><i></i>

Anti-War America

PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 4:27 pm
by proldic
by Todd Gitlin<br>August 30, 2005<br><br>There come moments in the course of all movements when they go mainstream, despite the best efforts of their enemies to demonize them and of their most radical elements to purify them. Such a moment has probably arrived in the case of the current anti-war effort. But pitfalls also loom.<br><br>You cannot trade on certainties in such elusive matters, because events intrude. But a probable turning point arrived the evening of Wednesday, August 17, when (according to some hundreds of thousands around the country turned out for more than 1,600 candlelight vigils to express solidarity with Cindy Sheehan at Camp Casey outside Crawford, Texas. In White Plains, N.Y., the more than 100 who gathered included, I was told by a correspondent, “loads of soccer moms, Little League dads and plenty of their kids.” In Indianapolis, 400 turned out. A few days later, it was 2,000 in Salt Lake City, addressed by the Democratic mayor . Elizabeth Edwards wrote a piece supporting the vigils, though not necessarily total withdrawal. Most Democrats continue to duck anti-war demonstrations, though ex-Senator Gary Hart has urged them to come out of hiding. But the growing anti-war base is unlikely to let them rest easy in silence.<br><br>This is, by and large, not a movement of “extremists,” as casually charged (August 22) by MSNBC’s White House correspondent Norah O’Donnell in an interview with former FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley, now a Democratic candidate for a House seat in Minnesota. Rowley had paid a visit to Sheehan’s “Camp Casey” in Crawford, and told O’Donnell: “The majority of the people I saw down in Crawford were actually veterans groups. There were military families and—“ At that point, O’Donnell cut her off.<br><br>It won’t be the last time a journalist cuts off a mainstream war protester in mid-description. The heat is rising. As the American Legion condemned all public anti-war protests, an AP-Ipsos poll said 87 percent of Americans thought protests legitimate. But the White House and its surrogates will surely continue tarring Sheehan and her supporters and anyone else they can find with the gaudiest brushes they can find. And some on the left’s margins will step forward to play their assigned role. <br><br>The historical analogy game is as irresistible as it is tricky, so here goes. The Sheehan vigils are reminiscent of a moment in the fall of 1969 when the anti-Vietnam-war Moratorium organized thousands of events across the country. There were big demonstrations in the usual locations, but the striking thing was the turnout in small and medium locales and places not noted for hippies or cosmopolitanism. Then too, the media caught on to the scale and diversity of the turnout. The demonstrations were in synch with public opinion. Around that time, according to Gallup, 49 percent supported some troop withdrawal, and 78 percent wanted it faster than Nixon’s pace.<br> <br>Now too, as with Vietnam, the public has long since concluded that the Iraq war was a blunder in the first place. Moreover, now the hawkish side of the spectrum is much weaker than the withdrawal side. But this doesn’t mean the public knows what it wants done. In polls, a lot depends on the question asked, and the results, though not splendid for Bush, are not automatically running toward withdrawal. According to last week’s AP-Ipsos poll, 60 percent say “American troops should remain until Iraq is stable,” as against 37 percent who preferred immediate withdrawal. (Foolishly, Ipsos offered only these two choices.) Early in August, Gallup found 56 percent for either total or partial withdrawal (as against maintenance or increase), with the largest single bloc, 33 percent, going for total withdrawal.<br><br>Here’s the rub about 1969: As the war became less popular, so did the anti-war movement. It was hated, in fact—by the end of the decade, the most hated entity in America. In the 1969 Gallup poll I just cited, as Harold Meyerson reminded his Washington Post readers in June, “77 percent disapproved of the antiwar demonstrations, which were then at their height.” To what degree this was because the movement was reputed to be against the troops, to what degree because of confrontational revelries and symbolic anti-Americanism on the left, to what degree because of psychic projection, who can tell? But all this was a gift to Nixon, and it has been the gift to the right that keeps on giving. <br><br>Perhaps mindful of this inauspicious history, one unnamed correspondent during a recent Washington Post chat wrote the following: <br><br>The anti-war movement really has to learn about behavior. The candlelight vigil thing was great. That's the sort of action that makes sense, actually makes for good PR, and draws in the mainstream….But sadly, too much of this has been run by the ‘Giant Puppet,’ ‘Bongo circles for peace,’ and ‘Street Theatre’ crowd. For example, the upcoming ‘United for Peace and Justice’ rally is going to protest the war, the World Bank, Israel, and demand unilateral Nuclear Disarmament. All accompanied by Trustafarians with bongos and Giant Puppets.<br><br>When the mainstream sees that idiocy, they start considering that the pro-war side may have a point. I opposed this joke in Iraq from day one, and I find these folks silly and counterproductive. The anti-war movement needs more adults in charge, not folks trying to pretend it’s 1968 all over again, without all the drugs.<br><br>The September 24 Washington rally referred to above is co-sponsored by International ANSWER, which along with “Stop the War in Iraq” offers these slogans: “Support the Palestinian People’s Right of Return,” “U.S. out of the Philippines,” and “U.S. out of Puerto Rico.” (Somehow help for Darfur is missing. That must not be anti-imperialist enough.) <br><br>Cindy Sheehan has already been Swift-Boated, and there’s probably more coming. With their poll numbers sinking, Bush and Karl Rove need reinforcements. They’ll go down and dirty, as usual. Those who rightly want to dissent from the whole awful Bush war will have to decide, once again, how to do so in such a way as to increase their leverage and avoid getting painted into a corner.<br><br><br><br>- Author Todd Gitlin was the third president of Students for a Democratic Society, in 1963-64, and coordinator of the SDS Peace Research and Education Project in 1964-65, during which time he helped organize the first national demonstration against the Vietnam War. During 1968-69, he was an editor and writer for the San Francisco Express Times, and through 1970 wrote widely for the underground press. He is now a professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University. <br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href=""></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br> <br> <p></p><i></i>